Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Rohit and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 667 of 2024
Decided On : 11-05-2024
QUASHING - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court quashed the charge-sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case after both parties resolved their private disputes and submitted a Compromise Application, emphasizing the importance of mutual consent in the pursuit of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants-accused filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge-sheet and cognizance order in a pending criminal case involving theft and related offenses. Both parties had resolved their disputes and submitted a Compromise Application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both parties had voluntarily resolved their disputes and had no objection to the quashing of the proceedings, indicating that the ends of justice would be served by doing so.
Issues: Whether the charge-sheet and cognizance order should be quashed based on the mutual agreement of the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when parties to a private dispute reach a compromise and express their willingness to resolve the matter amicably, the court can quash the proceedings to uphold the principles of justice.
Result: The court quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings of the criminal case, thereby disposing of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. The present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicants-accused to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.06.2019, cognizance order dated 03.08.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3532 of 2019, State vs. Rohit and Another pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 380, 411, 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Today, before the National Lok Adalat, the applicants-accused are present through video conferencing. They are identified by Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate.
3. Respondent no. 2/informant/victim-Pawan Kumar is present through video conferencing. He is identified by Mr. Yogesh Upadhaya, Advocate.
4. Both, the applicants and respondent no. 2 submitted that there were private disputes between them, and after resolving their disputes, they have filed a Compromise Application today. A Compounding Application along with their affidavits are on record.
5. Both the parties submitted that they have filed the Compounding Application and the Compromise Application with their free will and without any pressure.
6. Both the parties have requested to decide the present matter.
7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there were private disputes between the parties and they have resolved their disputes, therefore, the State has no objection to the Compounding and Compromise Applications.
8. Compromise Application, filed today, is verified.
9. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the charge-sheet dated 18.06.2019, cognizance order dated 03.08.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3532 of 2019, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are quashed.
10. Resultantly, the charge-sheet dated 18.06.2019, cognizance order dated 03.08.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3532 of 2019, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
11. The Criminal Misc. Application (C482 No. 667 of 2024), filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is disposed of accordingly.
AI
The court established that mutual consent and resolution of disputes between parties can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court established that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when parties have resolved their disputes and continuing the proceedings would deny....
The court established that mutual settlement between parties can justify the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice.
Private disputes resolution and filing of Compounding Application can be considered for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
